NASA may replace its troubled fleet of space shuttles with a new generation of Apollo-type space capsules, a top space agency official said. "Certainly we have considerable amount of experience flying with capsules," Dr. John Rogacki, director of NASA's space transportation directorate, told Reuters on Wednesday. "One might say on the capsule side it could be that that design experience may lead to a capsule being available sooner than a winged vehicle." Unlike shuttles that land like airplanes, capsules splash down in the ocean and must be recovered by ships. The resurrection of space capsules, which last launched three decades ago, is gaining favor among astronauts, space agency officials and congressional staffers after the shuttle Columbia disaster that killed seven astronauts on February 1. The 13 members of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board were unanimous in urging NASA to replace the aging shuttles as soon as possible by using existing technology and materials.

NASA said on Tuesday that the next space shuttle flight, designed to test repairs that might have saved Columbia, would not make a March launch target and might not fly until midsummer.

View: Full Article | Source: CNN

I understand that the astronauts are happy with this development because of safety fears, and that the realists at NASA see it as their best bet, with any new winged vehicle 15 to 20 years away.

But am I the only one who sees it as a disappointing step backwards?

NASA are more than America's space programme. They are the world's space programme. The efforts of other countries are little more than business ventures.

But NASA is also partly a product of the cold war. Perhaps it needs to re-invent itself for this new era, when funding is poor, and public apathy is probably higher than ever.

Joint programs with other countries to share funding, like the air force's joint-strike fighter development. I'm not talking the deal with Russia, because that's political. Other than experience from MIR, the Russians bring nothing to the party. But projects with say the EU, or Japan, where both money and hi-tech knowledge could be pooled.

Strangely, as I sit down to write this, I've just been watching The Right Stuff, which was being shown on the BBC tonight. For those that don't know, it tells the story of NASA's first seven astronauts, and of test pilot Chuck Yaegar, who took America's first steps beyond the sound barrier and into space.

Watching the movie, I felt a slight pang of sadness at it all. Has the journey into space faltered so badly?

If not for the ongoing space station project, the future would look pretty bleak.

There were two points in this article that stood out to me. One being:

I agree completely with the points you make, Starlyte. I mentioned them a bit too briefly at the top of my post, that safety is paramount, and if there's no new vehicle, what else can they do?

I remember the Challenger disaster, and I had that same sick feeling in my stomach after the latest catastrophy. It is infinitely better to play things safe rather than lose a single further astronaut.

What can I say, I'm a romantic.

I was growing up during the early days of the shuttle, and the future for NASA looked rosy. I don't blame NASA because they can only do so much with what funding they are given. I don't blame the US government (unlike the sad angry loners currently ranting over on the conspiracy forums). If America wasn't putting her money where her mouth is, who else would?

It's just one of those things that doesn't turn out quite how you'd hoped. That's life, I suppose.

After all, I'm still waiting for England to win the soccer world cup again.

See. Told you I was a romantic.